camtestfandomcom-20200214-history
User talk:Cqm
Welcome! Hey there! We're excited to have Cam's Test Wiki as part of the Wikia community! There's still a lot to do, so here are some helpful tips and links to get your wiki going: *Not sure where to begin? Stop by Founder & Admin Central and check out the Blog for tips on how to jump start your wiki and make it grow! *Visit Community Central to make friends via chat, learn about new features and get updated on Wikia news and upcoming features on the Staff Blog. *Take a look at our webinar series -- where you can sign up to interact with Wikia staff, as well as watch past sessions *Be sure to check out to see what features you can enable on your wiki! *Explore our forums on Founder and Admin Central to see what other wiki admins are asking. *Lastly, visit our Help Pages to answer any specific question you may have. All of the above links are a great place to start exploring Wikia. If you get stuck or have a question you can't find the answer to -- please contact us . But most importantly, have fun! :) Happy editing! -- Sarah Manley switch infoboxes I've made a template with subtemplate for the inline switching. I think that works exactly how it should now. There's only one problem I can see with these tabbers (although I'm not sure if that exists or not in the JS version), which would be that you can only make a single switch infobox per page. So, I was thinking about it, and I think there might be a way to eliminate the use of id=""s completely. The ids are used right now because s don't work otherwise, but that also means that instead of using the id to determine what tab the checkbox belongs to, we could simply use classes for the checkbox when it comes to the CSS part of it, and then just assign a randomised id to the checkbox, to which the label is attached. So, that would be something like this: tab 1 Then we could just change every line like #switch-radio-1:checked ~ #switch-content-1, to .switch-radio-1:checked ~ .switch-content-1,. Then we'd be able to use multiple switch templates on a single page. The only problem with this is that there's currently not really a good random string/number/anything generator available on this wiki. Could you think of something? The only kind of thing that I could think of that might work is something similar to runescape:User:Joeytje50/random, but then not dependant on #time:s (since that will be constant on 1 pageload). Joeytje50 talk 01:16, November 27, 2013 (UTC) :Or wikipedia:Template:Random_number.Joeytje50 talk 01:46, November 27, 2013 (UTC) ::Think the tabber is ready to be installed now?Joeytje50 talk 22:35, January 1, 2014 (UTC) Zanik & my block on RSwikia So... since you blocked me, I can't reply to you, only on my talk page. So idk if you'd see it. So here's the link the what I said. And to sake you trouble, here's what I said: :: In my memory I did type a reason as to why I undid his revert. Though it seems it didn't come through, idk why, but I agree I should've been more careful. However, to the meat of the matter: Fsw claims it's not true, since a postbag states otherwise. But that goes against what we've decided, as a wikia as a whole. You might remember this discussion where this is a source for what I wrote - among others, it involved all three of us (you, fsw, and me). In it was was stated that it ought not only count for the God letters, but also for the novels and Postbag (and merely that the Post bag page doesn't state this doesn't make that ruling void, otherwise that should've been mentioned because else... you know paradox). After a looong discussion, we got an agreement that pleased everybody, which was summed up as follows: ::: ''Remember: The God Letters are only considered to be canonical as long as their information does not conflict with other sources, in which case these sources take precedence.'' :: As you might see from the source I included in my edit, I basically copied it verbatim. :: I disagree with your statement that it's "contentious", sure Fsw disagrees with me, but on person disagreeing with me (especially if the facts clearly discredit that opinion) that doesn't mean that it's "contentious" by default. This was an exchange between ONLY fsw and me, no-one else seems to disagree (so far). How does that make it contentious? ::Yes I do think you're being very prudish, very much so. I'm not saying you're the only one, there are whole schools of thought that think an ankle is too sexual - so don't worry you're not alone. But that doesn't mean it's reasonable to be prudish about this topic. However, and firstly: nothing sexual was stated at all(!). I'm not going to be childish and state all the possible things that are and are not sexual in nature what is, but 'romantic interest' not not equal 'sex' by default. Secondly, I have not seen anywhere that it says you should stay clear from 'sex'. And, thirdly, to point out inconsistencies, if so... would you remove these (2nd trivia point and same for this one) mentions of 'sex' too? To me they seem nearly indistinguishable. Those are just two examples from the top of my mind that I know are on this wikia. There might be others. Furthermore/Forthly it's really rather interesting for merely a trivia. idk if you're aware, but even in today's Western liberal society LGBT rights and representation is still hotly debated. Many, if not most, things in media still fail the simple Bechdel test. A similar test of LGBTs would have even bigger fails. And even in RS this would be rather exceptional, as evidenced by the comments of the mods in the source - especially because Jagex is an open organisation in that (and other) respects: so doubly interesting I'd say. This certainly warrants it to be part of the Trivia, I think. :: I would create a forum update on RSTrivia or Commonsense, but... it seemed you blocked me from doing that, so that's impossible. Which I really don't understand... It's called 3RR: Three Revert Rule. I'll walk you through it, in order of... appearance: ::# I make and edit ::# Fsw reverts it - revert 1 ::# I re-revert it - revert 2 ::# you Re-re-revert it - revert 3 ::Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I broke it here, if anyone did it.. YOU did: you made the 3rd revert. I'm really tired of this unfair bias against me. idk if fsw dislikes me or even knows the 3RR rule. But this is not really what I'd call nice. 14:27, June 9, 2015 (UTC) I bid you good day. — Leon Art (talk) 14:33, June 9, 2015 (UTC)